Oh I understand what you're saying but there are some points that were presented at the trial though and in response to questions the judge told them what to ignore, ie what Tostee did after she fell. (Going for a walk, eating a pizza, calling his father) In my mind he was responsible but when I read what the judge said could and couldn't be taken into account to come to a decision then that decision would have to be not guilty.

What I particularly dislike about this trial and its reporting is the slut shaming of the dead woman.

Did you attend the trial? If not, how do you know what was said, or how it was said?

What Justice Robin Camp actually said and what the media have reported he said are very different.

I have minimal faith in the media being able to report anything appropriately.

I followed this since the beginning, elsewhere (other fora). IMO, not a nice chap, but I never understood how/why he was charged with murder. I couldn't understand why that would 'work', legally.

Followed the trial too, I kept expecting the prosecution to come up with evidence/witnesses not publicly available.

Just a darn shame all round .

Unless they are wealthy footballers with girlfriends from a millionaire family who can afford expensive legal teams and who offer financial inducements for 'witnesses' to suddenly have relevant testimony at retrials, of course.

I think giving her home made vodka to drink would have been a huge factor in her drunkeness, even the defence said she was hallucinating. Ack. At least his life is completely ****ed up now

I said my argument had a few holes in it.

What I was suggesting was that if you indulge in activities that 'normal' people think are outside the norm, then the probability that your next of kin will be reaching for the adding machine will increase above average expectations.

Now abnormal behaviour, using my definition, will extend to asexual activities like Mountain Climbing, Space Travel, Lion Taming, etc as well as meeting odd minded strangers for risky sex.

From what I recall (!) some young people like to push their realm of 'experience' living a life of maximum adventure (as the saying goes). Modern technology such as ubiquitous cameras, recorders, and social networks must not only facilitate but encourage such behaviours. I can't condemn either individual, they were just being young and irresponsible in the 21st century.

I don't understand the link between the portion of my quote that you have posted and what you have stated here.

Are you suggesting that wealthy footballers are able to adduce evidence about the complainant's sexual history at trial, or are you simply bitter that somebody that you think "did it" has not been convicted?

You stated that sexual history was not presented in sexual assault cases.

There was a recent example, just last week, where you were wrong. It was presented in the retrial.

I suspect that there was a reason why the evidence was allowed and, if that decision was made inappropriately, an appeal would likely succeed.

Edit: Google has enabled me to discover what you were talking about. I guess my post should have included the word, "normally" as the exceptions to that particular rule are quite exceptional. I apologise for my error.

I note that, from what has been reported, it was the appeal court that allowed that evidence, after hearing arguments from both sides.

In this particular case, there was a financial reward for the "information" and the idea that a sexual partner might indicate what they would like in a previous encounter with someone else doesn't seem particularly exceptional given the limited range of vocabulary used in such situations.

They'd hardly have discussed Brexit or something.

I wasn't one of the jurors, or the judge involved. I believe you are attempting to argue with someone that didn't make the decision.

Of course not...but you did say it could be allowed in exceptional cases.

I'm suggesting - not arguing - that there was nothing exceptional in the "new evidence" at the retrial that was not presented at the original trial that was very well reported in this case.

It's not as if the woman had a predilection for dressing as little bo peep while her partners dressed as a goat or something. Something like that would likely be accepted as exceptional rather than the variations on the expression reported which I would venture to suggest are extremely common in such encounters.

Your need to google suggests you were unaware of the original case, the appeal based on this "new evidence" and the subsequent retrial. Along with all the other stuff that was in the news about how she had been identified on social media, harassed, had identity changed numerous times and moved several times while several people were convicted of identifying her.

There really was an awful lot of media coverage that you appear to have missed. We're not just talking a few juicy headlines here.

I'm confident if you had followed the original case, the appeal and the retrial that you too would have misgivings about whether there was really anything exceptional about her past even without considering the £50,000 inducements for people to come forward and say she wanted them to do it harder.

They probably had small willies

But big cars.